Author Topic: Islamism  (Read 127696 times)

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,692
  • The first five yards........
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1280 on: August 12, 2014, 02:09:34 PM »
Ha ha. Short and to the point.

Many of them do of course.

Taking with them as many bystanders as possible.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline zero zero

  • Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,521
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1281 on: August 12, 2014, 03:14:26 PM »
Many of them do of course.

Taking with them as many bystanders as possible.
Oh, you don't have to remind me of that. I could have been one of those bystanders on a number of occasions. I took every suicide attack personally; sure, the terrorists weren't targeting me specifically, but they were quite happy if I became a statistic.

Luckily, the terrorists I was faced with were only of the mono-ethnic, Fascist variety, complete with a personality cult for their leader and a suicide fetish. They didn't have medieval religious texts to point to and state that their actions had divine sanction. So, it was easier, once the organisation had been defeated militarily and the leadership liquidated, to reach out to those that remained that there had to be and end to the killing and we all had find better ways to solve differences.

I doubt that's going to be as easy with IS or Boko Haram. That vice video turned my stomach watching a little boy, about the same age as my own, spout such closed-minded hate about infidels.

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,499
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1282 on: August 12, 2014, 03:40:52 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQezdSihI-o" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/JQezdSihI-o</a>
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,766
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1283 on: August 12, 2014, 03:53:46 PM »
That's very good.

"The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam".

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1284 on: August 12, 2014, 06:14:37 PM »
I think we need to be more precise regarding our terms here, especially the word "religion" (a word I've come to despise given the way it's used). Certainly the "religion" of say ISIS is quite different than the "religion" of an evangelical Christian from Kansas or a reformed Jew from Poland. Indeed the "secularism" of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany was quite different than the "secularism" of Churchill's Britain.

 


Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,595
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1285 on: August 12, 2014, 07:01:05 PM »
I think we need to be more precise regarding our terms here, especially the word "religion" (a word I've come to despise given the way it's used). Certainly the "religion" of say ISIS is quite different than the "religion" of an evangelical Christian from Kansas or a reformed Jew from Poland. Indeed the "secularism" of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany was quite different than the "secularism" of Churchill's Britain.

The religion of Isis is exactly the same as an evangelical Christian in Kansas or a reformed Jew on Poland. They'd are all a confused mixture of creation myth and rules for living in an Iron Age or medieval agrarian and pre-scientific society. As such they contain an irrational hodge-lodge of ideas that can be used to justify a peaceful, loving world view or bloody Crusade or Jihad.  That's why those texts are so dangerous. It would be far easier if the Koran only promoted bloody jihad. Because it is so wooly (like the Bible and the Talmud) moderate Muslims cannot wholeheartedly condemn the horrific acts carried out in the name if Allah or God. .

Secularism is not a thing. It's the absence of a thing - religion. The fascism of Hitler's Germany, the fascist communism of Stalin's Russia, or the radical genocidal year-one communism of Pol Pot are fundamentally different by definition from conservative or social democracy.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,692
  • The first five yards........
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1286 on: August 12, 2014, 07:17:34 PM »
The religion of Isis is exactly the same as an evangelical Christian in Kansas or a reformed Jew on Poland. They'd are all a confused mixture of creation myth and rules for living in an Iron Age or medieval agrarian and pre-scientific society. As such they contain an irrational hodge-lodge of ideas that can be used to justify a peaceful, loving world view or bloody Crusade or Jihad.  That's why those texts are so dangerous. It would be far easier if the Koran only promoted bloody jihad. Because it is so wooly (like the Bible and the Talmud) moderate Muslims cannot wholeheartedly condemn the horrific acts carried out in the name if Allah or God. .

I don't think it makes them "dangerous". It means that they can be infuriating to read as anything that is incoherent is infuriating to read. It obviously reduces their value as works of philosophy too. But the texts themselves only become dangerous if they are treated as "gospel" and, as gospel, fetishised to the point that they serve as blueprints for building the good society. I suppose the texts also become dangerous if people aren't allowed to historicise them or criticise them as well. 
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Doc Red

  • Chills before posting and wishes others had too
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,162
  • The eye cannot see what the mind does not know.
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1287 on: August 12, 2014, 07:21:47 PM »
Anyway. I'm done. I spent far too much time in here yesterday.

I'm surprised you're done, to be honest.

In the midst of what seemed like a level headed debate (at least for 1-2 pages) on the role of religion within government, you waded in posting opinions as facts, throwing around accusations about Islam, and somewhere in there you even managed to flick in something about pigs and space flight and how that seems to conclusively proves there isn't a God. Now remember, we're not discussing the issue of "is Islam the answer to the purpose of life, or not", we're discussing the Islamism, which Yorky has kept trying to claim is not a front for attacking the religion, simply a debate on Islam as a form of Government (or as expressed via the likes of ISIS). And as a mod, you feel this helps further the debate we're having? That you've set an example on how to debate Islamism? We've already got another mod that's just posted a clip from a religious sceptic that's attempted to present his views on how Islam is not a religion of peace.

This thread is akin to opening a thread titled "multiculturism" or "Immigration" which ends up getting filled by racists that are there to "debate". Where you have posters that come in and start their debates with sentences such as "as you know, I think you should all go back to the jungles you came from, Europe for true Europeans, anyway, let's debate". And every other post is mostly a case of taking potshots at minorities, or providing links and articles that shed a negative light on minorities within Europe. What eventually happens is those posters that were really interested in a debate will realise early on the true nature of the thread and just avoid it. And all you'll be left with are a bunch of bigots posting link after link that misrepresents and slanders minorities , whilst under the guise of "debate".

I've already mentioned, when I first started posting on this thread, that all we're having are "loaded debates", and I was surprised that that kind of rhetoric would be acceptable within this site. I was led to believe that things were going on "behind the scenes", but now we've even got mods jumping in on the act. I mentioned in an earlier post, that I spend part of my free time lecturing, teaching, and debating about religion (and specifically Islam) within the community I currently reside in, and pretty much within all the countries I've been privileged to live in. With the exception of this thread, I never debate online. I've found that people are far more likely to offer a basic level of respect when debating in person as opposed to debating against keyboard warriors.

I'm only here because RAWK is the site I turn towards whenever I've got some free time and I'm on the internet, and what to enjoy some great readings on the subject of Liverpool. My posts numbers are relatively low precisely because I come here to read, and thankfully, there are some fantastic posters on this site that help contribute to some great content. If you excluse the posts I've made on this thread, most of my posts are simply showing appreciation towards a poster that contributed a research/opinion/stance/article that I enjoyed. I stumbled onto this thread just recently, and after browsing through the previous content, I felt that if I added my voice (offering another perspective) it might help lend itself towards starting a debate, instead of what it seems to have become; a thread where posters can post any and all negative information about Islam whilst making the occasional pot shots against Religions in general.

But now I can see why some of the earlier posters have since stopped posting on this thread. It's not a healthy debate. There's already enough negativity and manipulation of facts in the real world, I don't have the time (or interest) to start spending time deflecting rhetoric on online football site.  Obviously, all the mods disagree with my opinions concerning this thread, nonetheless, it's my opinion and I stand by it. As long as the "debate" follows the current lines, I won't be wasting my time adding to it.

I'd give a farewell shoutout to my fellow posters on this thread, but let's not kid ourselves, I won't be missed. :wave
So enjoy yourselves, and the last one out remember to switch of the light.
There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.

Offline SadRed

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,220
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1288 on: August 12, 2014, 07:25:23 PM »
Because it is so wooly (like the Bible and the Talmud) moderate Muslims cannot wholeheartedly condemn the horrific acts carried out in the name if Allah or God.

That is not true. Muslims can and they do condemn horrific acts in the name of God. Imams in many countries have been killed precisely for this. These terrorists have killed more muslims (whom they consider infidels too may I add) more than anyone else. If you have actually read their philosophy derived, they treat everyone who doesnt agree with them as a legitimate target.

Offline SadRed

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,220
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1289 on: August 12, 2014, 07:30:41 PM »
I'm surprised you're done, to be honest.

In the midst of what seemed like a level headed debate (at least for 1-2 pages) on the role of religion within government, you waded in posting opinions as facts, throwing around accusations about Islam, and somewhere in there you even managed to flick in something about pigs and space flight and how that seems to conclusively proves there isn't a God. Now remember, we're not discussing the issue of "is Islam the answer to the purpose of life, or not", we're discussing the Islamism, which Yorky has kept trying to claim is not a front for attacking the religion, simply a debate on Islam as a form of Government (or as expressed via the likes of ISIS). And as a mod, you feel this helps further the debate we're having? That you've set an example on how to debate Islamism? We've already got another mod that's just posted a clip from a religious sceptic that's attempted to present his views on how Islam is not a religion of peace.

This thread is akin to opening a thread titled "multiculturism" or "Immigration" which ends up getting filled by racists that are there to "debate". Where you have posters that come in and start their debates with sentences such as "as you know, I think you should all go back to the jungles you came from, Europe for true Europeans, anyway, let's debate". And every other post is mostly a case of taking potshots at minorities, or providing links and articles that shed a negative light on minorities within Europe. What eventually happens is those posters that were really interested in a debate will realise early on the true nature of the thread and just avoid it. And all you'll be left with are a bunch of bigots posting link after link that misrepresents and slanders minorities , whilst under the guise of "debate".

I've already mentioned, when I first started posting on this thread, that all we're having are "loaded debates", and I was surprised that that kind of rhetoric would be acceptable within this site. I was led to believe that things were going on "behind the scenes", but now we've even got mods jumping in on the act. I mentioned in an earlier post, that I spend part of my free time lecturing, teaching, and debating about religion (and specifically Islam) within the community I currently reside in, and pretty much within all the countries I've been privileged to live in. With the exception of this thread, I never debate online. I've found that people are far more likely to offer a basic level of respect when debating in person as opposed to debating against keyboard warriors.

I'm only here because RAWK is the site I turn towards whenever I've got some free time and I'm on the internet, and what to enjoy some great readings on the subject of Liverpool. My posts numbers are relatively low precisely because I come here to read, and thankfully, there are some fantastic posters on this site that help contribute to some great content. If you excluse the posts I've made on this thread, most of my posts are simply showing appreciation towards a poster that contributed a research/opinion/stance/article that I enjoyed. I stumbled onto this thread just recently, and after browsing through the previous content, I felt that if I added my voice (offering another perspective) it might help lend itself towards starting a debate, instead of what it seems to have become; a thread where posters can post any and all negative information about Islam whilst making the occasional pot shots against Religions in general.

But now I can see why some of the earlier posters have since stopped posting on this thread. It's not a healthy debate. There's already enough negativity and manipulation of facts in the real world, I don't have the time (or interest) to start spending time deflecting rhetoric on online football site.  Obviously, all the mods disagree with my opinions concerning this thread, nonetheless, it's my opinion and I stand by it. As long as the "debate" follows the current lines, I won't be wasting my time adding to it.

I'd give a farewell shoutout to my fellow posters on this thread, but let's not kid ourselves, I won't be missed. :wave
So enjoy yourselves, and the last one out remember to switch of the light.

I agree with this 100%!! Could not have put it any better!!

I am going to follow you out of the door here too, I just despair the kind of vitriol that is being posted with no intention of any genuine debate.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,692
  • The first five yards........
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1290 on: August 12, 2014, 07:34:19 PM »
That is not true. Muslims can and they do condemn horrific acts in the name of God. Imams in many countries have been killed precisely for this. These terrorists have killed more muslims (whom they consider infidels too may I add) more than anyone else. If you have actually read their philosophy derived, they treat everyone who doesnt agree with them as a legitimate target.

I agree with that. If Alan had used the word "convincingly" rather than "wholeheartedly" it might have been better - logically better I mean. There's no doubting the sincerity of many Muslims who "wholeheartedly" oppose the Islamists. As you say, many have lost their lives for doing this. I don't think it casts any aspersions on their efforts (or their sacrifice) to say, however, that their opposition is not totally convincing so long as it is confined to saying things like "Islamism has no genuine roots in the Koran". That's a losing wicket, as it were. Islamism clearly has roots in Islam. Much better, therefore to say, "don't fetishise the Book. There are other things in life".
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1291 on: August 12, 2014, 07:39:25 PM »
The religion of Isis is exactly the same as an evangelical Christian in Kansas or a reformed Jew on Poland.

Really? They are exactly the same? That is an astounding display of ignorance and black-and-white thinking.

Quote
They'd are all a confused mixture of creation myth and rules for living in an Iron Age or medieval agrarian and pre-scientific society. As such they contain an irrational hodge-lodge of ideas that can be used to justify a peaceful, loving world view or bloody Crusade or Jihad.  That's why those texts are so dangerous. It would be far easier if the Koran only promoted bloody jihad. Because it is so wooly (like the Bible and the Talmud) moderate Muslims cannot wholeheartedly condemn the horrific acts carried out in the name if Allah or God. .

Your problem is that you can't think outside of the fundamentalist paradigm. Horrible acts can be justified in the name of Allah or God. They can also be justified in the name of advancing the selfish interests of any Nation State, or ethnic group, or political party. So what's your point?

Quote
Secularism is not a thing. It's the absence of a thing - religion
.

Whether you define it as a "thing" or "the absence of a thing" is irrelevant to the point.

Quote
The fascism of Hitler's Germany, the fascist communism of Stalin's Russia, or the radical genocidal year-one communism of Pol Pot are fundamentally different by definition from conservative or social democracy.

Was Stalin's Russia a form of secular society or not?

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,595
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1292 on: August 12, 2014, 07:58:47 PM »
I don't think it makes them "dangerous". It means that they can be infuriating to read as anything that is incoherent is infuriating to read. It obviously reduces their value as works of philosophy too. But the texts themselves only become dangerous if they are treated as "gospel" and, as gospel, fetishised to the point that they serve as blueprints for building the good society. I suppose the texts also become dangerous if people aren't allowed to historicise them or criticise them as well. 

I wouldn't disagree in general. Religion is dangerous in the same way that Dynamite or C4 is dangerous. Without a detonator they are both inert. With a detonator they create havoc. Read any religious text in comparison to the UN Universal Declaration if Human Rights. There's no ambiguity. You'd be hard pushed to create a jihad or crusade citing it for inspiration.

The Koran reflects the society and time in which it was created and it contains verses that Islamists can call up in support of their actions. The Koran doesn't direct all Muslims to become radical Islamists. But it does allow Radical Islamists to claim, with justification, that their actions are supported by God.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline SadRed

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,220
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1293 on: August 12, 2014, 08:17:38 PM »
The Koran reflects the society and time in which it was created and it contains verses that Islamists can call up in support of their actions. The Koran doesn't direct all Muslims to become radical Islamists. But it does allow Radical Islamists to claim, with justification, that their actions are supported by God.

In the same way science allowed, with justification, for people to practice eugenics? They believed their actions were for the better good of humanity. The argument you post is so broad, it can be applied to anything. Its absurd.

I decided to not post in this thread anymore because of I believe a lot of the posts are highly inflammatory, insulting, offensive and only intersted in criticizing Islam. I just thought I will get the last word here before I leave this place. For a second if you can reconcile this anger you seem to have about religion in general and Islam in particular, you will see its humans who will find ways to fight and there is never going to be a lack of reason.

I am pretty sure you know atleast a few muslims in person, and they are not all evil. I feel sick even to have to write this on a public forum. Just have humility to consider that 1 billion people in the world do understand their religion better than some of you who think the religion is cause of all evil just like the few thousand madmen in Iraq who find reasons within it to fight and kill. Just think why they find fertile ground in war torn countries, and not otherwise, just consider for a second its all the fighting that has led to more violence, and these are humans who will derive their source from anywhere.


EDIT: This is it for me on RAWK. See you guys and hope we have a good season.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 08:21:19 PM by SadRed »

Offline Tepid T₂O

  • MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 63,237
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1294 on: August 12, 2014, 08:20:21 PM »
In the same way science allowed, with justification, for people to practice eugenics? They believed their actions were for the better good of humanity. The argument you post is so broad, it can be applied to anything. Its absurd.

I decided to not post in this thread anymore because of I believe a lot of the posts are highly inflammatory, insulting, offensive and only intersted in criticizing Islam. I just thought I will get the last word here before I leave this place. For a second if you can reconcile this anger you seem to have about religion in general and Islam in particular, you will see its humans who will find ways to fight and there is never going to be a lack of reason.

I am pretty sure you know atleast a few muslims in person, and they are not all evil. Just have humility to consider that 1 billion people in the world do understand their religion better than some of you who think the religion is cause of all evil just like the few thousand madmen in Iraq who find reasons within it to fight and kill. Just think why they find fertile ground in war torn countries, and not otherwise, just consider for a second its all the fighting that has led to more violence, and these are humans who will derive their source from anywhere.





Please remember that a thread about Islamism will of course concentrate on Islam, and of course there will be criticism.

If you look at threads on say the Catholic Church in Ireland, you will find enormous criticism of Catholicism...

Etc etc

I know many many many Muslims. 

They are intrinsically no better or worse people than any other ethnic group I encounter.

I have always been surprised by the quite high number who fail to condemn the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda (for example) however.  Nice normal people who wouldn't condemn cold blooded murder.  But that's the evil effects of religion for you (IMO).

And I could give the examples of Ian Paisley failing to condemn loyalist murders as an example from other faiths.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 08:24:02 PM by Tepid Hubwis »
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,692
  • The first five yards........
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1295 on: August 12, 2014, 08:21:08 PM »

I decided to not post in this thread anymore because of I believe a lot of the posts are highly inflammatory, insulting, offensive.


This has been said by two posters now. I don't think it can be true but it would be really helpful, not to mention honest, if you could cite some examples so we know what you're talking about.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,595
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1296 on: August 12, 2014, 08:23:27 PM »
Really? They are exactly the same? That is an astounding display of ignorance and black-and-white thinking.

Of course they are the same. They are all religions - just with different flavours and a different cast of characters. And it's not black and white thinking it's shades of grey thinking. They are the same because they contain the full range of attitudes from love thy neighbour to stone your children outside the City walls if they disrespect you. And Jusaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic, share many texts and are based on societies from a relatively small geographical area.

Unless of course, you are suggesting that they are not all the same and that some are more loving or more hate filled than others. As I've said in my last post, I don't think religions are evil and I'm not focussing on radicalism. At the moment, Islam underpins by far the most radical religious groups in the planet. In history that badge of honour could have been claimed for other religions.

If course people will find reasons to hate and kill other people. But if that hatred is backed by the divine word of God it is not amenable to reason and far harder to deal with.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Twelfth Man

  • Rhianna fan. my arse! Someone fill me in. Any takers? :) We are the fabulous CFC...
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,018
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1297 on: August 12, 2014, 08:32:26 PM »
I don't think it makes them "dangerous". It means that they can be infuriating to read as anything that is incoherent is infuriating to read. It obviously reduces their value as works of philosophy too. But the texts themselves only become dangerous if they are treated as "gospel" and, as gospel, fetishised to the point that they serve as blueprints for building the good society. I suppose the texts also become dangerous if people aren't allowed to historicise them or criticise them as well. 
That is the problem with Islam, the Koran with all its contradictions and ambiguity, is the actual word of 'God', you can't have a detached historical, of its time, take on it, it is literal and any deviation can be interpreted by one side to oppose another. All religious texts are just part myth, literature, psychology, proto-philosophy, pseudoscience and they have a time and a place. I just can't get my head around anyone with even a rudimentary education not being able to see that. What forces are at work here?
The courts, the rich, the powerful or those in authority never lie. It has been dealt with 'by the courts' nothing to see here run along.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,595
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1298 on: August 12, 2014, 08:38:55 PM »
In the same way science allowed, with justification, for people to practice eugenics? They believed their actions were for the better good of humanity. The argument you post is so broad, it can be applied to anything. Its absurd.

I decided to not post in this thread anymore because of I believe a lot of the posts are highly inflammatory, insulting, offensive and only intersted in criticizing Islam. I just thought I will get the last word here before I leave this place. For a second if you can reconcile this anger you seem to have about religion in general and Islam in particular, you will see its humans who will find ways to fight and there is never going to be a lack of reason.

I am pretty sure you know atleast a few muslims in person, and they are not all evil. I feel sick even to have to write this on a public forum. Just have humility to consider that 1 billion people in the world do understand their religion better than some of you who think the religion is cause of all evil just like the few thousand madmen in Iraq who find reasons within it to fight and kill. Just think why they find fertile ground in war torn countries, and not otherwise, just consider for a second its all the fighting that has led to more violence, and these are humans who will derive their source from anywhere.


EDIT: This is it for me on RAWK. See you guys and hope we have a good season.



I'm sorry you feel that way. You seemed happy to slag off the men of Finland and the Nordic countries as insatiable wife beaters when it suited but seem to get upset when it's pointed out that most of the worst countries in the world for domestic abuse were from the middles east and the teaching of Islam was a reason for that.

Personally I don't understand how it's possible to insult an idea. And I don't understand why God can't deal with me himself if he is offended.

Do you know who is probably the most insulted and abused person on RAWK? It's not Mohamed or Jesus or God by any of his many names. It's Richard Dawkins. Most pages of the Dawkins thread he is called an insufferable c*nt, a smug prick and far, far worse. And atheists in general get similar comments. Do I get upset on his behalf? Do I run away from the debate? No because Dawkins (unlike God apparently) is capable of looking after himself.

I haven't insulted you or anyone else. If you have taken offence because I criticise your religion that's up yo you. If you think I've been racist or crossed the line them please feel free to use the report to mod button.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Kochevnik

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,980
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1299 on: August 12, 2014, 08:54:23 PM »
The religion of Isis is exactly the same as an evangelical Christian in Kansas or a reformed Jew on Poland. They'd are all a confused mixture of creation myth and rules for living in an Iron Age or medieval agrarian and pre-scientific society. As such they contain an irrational hodge-lodge of ideas that can be used to justify a peaceful, loving world view or bloody Crusade or Jihad.  That's why those texts are so dangerous. It would be far easier if the Koran only promoted bloody jihad. Because it is so wooly (like the Bible and the Talmud) moderate Muslims cannot wholeheartedly condemn the horrific acts carried out in the name if Allah or God. .

Secularism is not a thing. It's the absence of a thing - religion. The fascism of Hitler's Germany, the fascist communism of Stalin's Russia, or the radical genocidal year-one communism of Pol Pot are fundamentally different by definition from conservative or social democracy.

One of the things that really frustrates me about talking to the "new atheist" breed of online Dawkins-quoters is this.

This idea that by using the word "religion" you get to say "well, we're the only ones without one so we can obviously see what's wrong with all of the others and pass judgment on them.  I hate the word "religion" for this very reason.

You see, you have a worldview (a much more useful word, invented by a very clever German linguist).  A Muslim from Pakistan has a worldview.  The evangelical from Kansas has a worldview.  The reformed Jew from Poland has a worldview.  A worldview is a lens through which you interpret everything and it absolutely biases you to certain conclusions about the world and every single person has one.

Imagine a world where there are competing mathematical systems.  In your system, 2+2=4 and this is very obvious to you.  But then you meet an immigrant from a place where the symbol "2" means something else on a fundamental level.  You hear this man say that 2+2=6, or maybe 2+2=a fryup without beans, and you go ballistic.  How stupid he is, you'll rage, for not seeing what is blindingly obvious to you. 

But you've ignored one thing: He. Does. Not. Accept. Your. Worldview.  The constants upon which you base your philosophy, life goals, and morality are not the same constants upon which he bases his.  You can blather on about your worldview being right and his being wrong (and you obviously like to do this) but it does not matter because until you are dead there is zero chance of proving one or the other.

Now, I would argue that we can and should have discussions about which worldview is correct - which set of fundamental precepts shall we use to make these important decisions?  But let's do this with a bit of respect and take the time to understand the other person.  "All other worldviews are backwards idiocy compared to my enlightened worldview and they should be eliminated" is the worst sort of fundamentalism there is, and is in fact the very thing you're criticising these fundamentalist Muslims for believing.

Instead, I suggest a bit of humility, willingness to learn and patience.  But that's just me, because I'm not a fundamentalist about my worldview.
Managers who have won fewer than three European Cups: Ferguson, Mourinho, Guardiola, Saachi, Hiddink, Hitzfeld, Clough, Happel, Trapattoni, Cruyff, Michels, Lobanovsky, Capello, and many more.
Managers who have won three or more European Cups: Bob Paisley

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1300 on: August 12, 2014, 09:20:26 PM »
Of course they are the same. They are all religions - just with different flavours and a different cast of characters. And it's not black and white thinking it's shades of grey thinking. They are the same because they contain the full range of attitudes from love thy neighbour to stone your children outside the City walls if they disrespect you. And Jusaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic, share many texts and are based on societies from a relatively small geographical area.

So they are not exactly the same then, are they?

Quote
As I've said in my last post, I don't think religions are evil and I'm not focussing on radicalism. At the moment, Islam underpins by far the most radical religious groups in the planet. In history that badge of honour could have been claimed for other religions.

Indeed it does. Now here I am. A non-violent Christian, one who is about to be married and is eager to raise children, and furthermore eager to teach them about the God who created all things. I will teach them to love justice, truth, and beauty, to absorb the wisdom of the great philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian), to express wonder at the sheer gratuity and magnitude of creation, and most of all to pursue a life of virtue.

And here you are, wearing the badge of "reason" and post-religious "enlightenment", confidently declaring that I am in fact a spiritual brother of murderous thugs and that our beliefs are exactly the same.

Frankly, your opinion is utterly stupid and disgraceful.

Quote
If course people will find reasons to hate and kill other people. But if that hatred is backed by the divine word of God it is not amenable to reason and far harder to deal with.

Yes, I suppose if only some "enlightened" humanist had access to Stalin's inner circle, he could have reasoned with him and shown him the error of his ways. After all, Stalin was much more amenable to reason than a stupid religious person who believes in a sky daddy. He just needed someone to tell him that starving millions of his own people was wrong.

Or maybe you are just spouting absolute tripe. 



Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,692
  • The first five yards........
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1301 on: August 12, 2014, 09:21:43 PM »
No because Dawkins (unlike God apparently) is capable of looking after himself.

To be fair Alan, that's because Dawkins is a real person. That puts God, Mo and Jeez at a disadvantage.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline zero zero

  • Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,521
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1302 on: August 12, 2014, 09:24:18 PM »
Indeed it does. Now here I am. A non-violent Christian, one who is about to be married and is eager to raise children, and furthermore eager to teach them about the God who created all things. I will teach them to love justice, truth, and beauty, to absorb the wisdom of the great philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian), to express wonder at the sheer gratuity and magnitude of creation, and most of all to pursue a life of virtue.
What will you tell them about the truth of evolution?

I do share your love of the natural world. It was the greatest gift my parents ever gave me.

Offline Jake

  • Admiral Ackbar
  • Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,728
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1303 on: August 12, 2014, 09:34:04 PM »
Whilst I don't personally think there is a deity in the sky/all around us etc, this thread seems to be veering more into critique of anyone who follows Islam, rather than a critique of those who use Islam as an excuse to commit atrocities.

My view is that those who use the name of Islam to commit horrible deeds (and I don't need to list them) are evil/immoral. If they genuinely believe the holy book of their faith then they must be mentally ill. I know loads of people with faith (Islam/Christianity/Sikhism) who are peaceful people like you or me. They've read the same book, perhaps memorised it, and they don't need to kill me because I don't like it.

I do agree with Alan however that the books were written in times long ago when a lot wasn't known about the world. And therefore some of the tales/parables/rules are outdated. It wasn't that long ago that society thought a woman who disobeyed should be given a firm slap, however now everyone should know better. Some faiths advocate treating women/homosexuals differently and for it to be acceptable to me, they would adapt.

There's a great quote from a beat poem by Tim Minchin (some may think he's an unfunny floppy haired twat ;D) that goes:

Quote
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

Holy books are interpretations of stories and events (possible, fake or real) by men, men who knew nothing of the world. There are great messages in some of them, but they shouldn't be taken as gospel, and that's the problem. Sane people pick the nice bits.

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1304 on: August 12, 2014, 09:57:40 PM »
What will you tell them about the truth of evolution?

I would simply say that for empirical matters, defer to the scientists.

However much of the supposed Science vs. Religion debates (if that's what you are getting at) are for me actually better described as Scientism vs. Classical Theism, in which case the debate concerns competing metaphysics rather than debates about science per se.

Offline zero zero

  • Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,521
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1305 on: August 12, 2014, 10:10:00 PM »
No, Bob, I'm asking you how you will explain the empirical fact of evolution to your children. You want to bring them up to love truth, which is very laudable of course, but also use the term 'the God who created all things'. I wonder how you'll reconcile that?

As I've said my love of nature is why I'm interested in evolution; the driving force behind why we live on an amazing planet with it's multitude of lifeforms. Part of accepting the weight of scientific knowledge that supports the fact of evolution is that we're descended from apes.


Congratulations on you impending marriage, btw
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 10:13:12 PM by zero zero »

Offline RedRabbit

  • Rampant but without the batteries.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,046
  • این نیز بگذرد
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1306 on: August 12, 2014, 11:03:42 PM »
One of the things that really frustrates me about talking to the "new atheist" breed of online Dawkins-quoters is this.

This idea that by using the word "religion" you get to say "well, we're the only ones without one so we can obviously see what's wrong with all of the others and pass judgment on them.  I hate the word "religion" for this very reason.

You see, you have a worldview (a much more useful word, invented by a very clever German linguist).  A Muslim from Pakistan has a worldview.  The evangelical from Kansas has a worldview.  The reformed Jew from Poland has a worldview.  A worldview is a lens through which you interpret everything and it absolutely biases you to certain conclusions about the world and every single person has one.

Imagine a world where there are competing mathematical systems.  In your system, 2+2=4 and this is very obvious to you.  But then you meet an immigrant from a place where the symbol "2" means something else on a fundamental level.  You hear this man say that 2+2=6, or maybe 2+2=a fryup without beans, and you go ballistic.  How stupid he is, you'll rage, for not seeing what is blindingly obvious to you. 

But you've ignored one thing: He. Does. Not. Accept. Your. Worldview.  The constants upon which you base your philosophy, life goals, and morality are not the same constants upon which he bases his.  You can blather on about your worldview being right and his being wrong (and you obviously like to do this) but it does not matter because until you are dead there is zero chance of proving one or the other.

Now, I would argue that we can and should have discussions about which worldview is correct - which set of fundamental precepts shall we use to make these important decisions?  But let's do this with a bit of respect and take the time to understand the other person.  "All other worldviews are backwards idiocy compared to my enlightened worldview and they should be eliminated" is the worst sort of fundamentalism there is, and is in fact the very thing you're criticising these fundamentalist Muslims for believing.

Instead, I suggest a bit of humility, willingness to learn and patience.  But that's just me, because I'm not a fundamentalist about my worldview.

This is all very true if you can readily accept that the word "religion" and "worldview" can be interchanged as easily as that. I don't think they can.

Religion, which is only a part of a world view in most cases, is a pre-wrapped package with rituals and practices attached. Those rituals and and practices can be malleable or discarded, twisted out of all recognition or misinterpreted (hence schisms), but the underlying core can not if one wants to say they are part of a religion. If your religion = your worldview we all have problems. Atheism on the other hand isn't a worldview at all. It's just a view on one particular subject. It's not a core belief for anyone to base anything on except in relation to that one subject.

Your idea that we should all get along with people who see the world differently from us is 100% correct. Live and let live I say. The problem is that some people with a particular worldview that millions of others share, use that underlying core to justify horrible atrocities. We could just say let's get rid of those but the core message does allow for a re-emergence of the fundamentalists.

To use your mathematical example, let's say there's a group that believe 2 + 2 = 4 and a group that believe 2 + 2 = 6. Let's say they get on and respect, if not agree, with eachother's worldviews. What happens when a small part of the Sixers (whose worldview is wooly enough to allow this interpretation) decide that everyone from 1 through 5 (and those who don't write 6 in the same font as they do) should be subjugated, converted through force or killed? Do we really have the luxury of keeping quiet until we die to see if the Sixer's worldview is right? Because the problem I'd have with that is, besides being bored, that it wouldn't matter which worldview is right, which world view is wrong or if we should even have a worldview at all. It's either true or it isn't. It makes no odds when we're dead. It makes a huge difference when we're alive.

And of course atheists can have an opinion on religion. Do you think we were all raised in an isolation chamber or something? Do you think none of us have been religious?

Offline west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,380
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1307 on: August 12, 2014, 11:58:53 PM »
One of the things that really frustrates me about talking to the "new atheist" breed of online Dawkins-quoters is this.

This idea that by using the word "religion" you get to say "well, we're the only ones without one so we can obviously see what's wrong with all of the others and pass judgment on them.  I hate the word "religion" for this very reason.

You see, you have a worldview (a much more useful word, invented by a very clever German linguist).  A Muslim from Pakistan has a worldview.  The evangelical from Kansas has a worldview.  The reformed Jew from Poland has a worldview.  A worldview is a lens through which you interpret everything and it absolutely biases you to certain conclusions about the world and every single person has one.

Imagine a world where there are competing mathematical systems.  In your system, 2+2=4 and this is very obvious to you.  But then you meet an immigrant from a place where the symbol "2" means something else on a fundamental level.  You hear this man say that 2+2=6, or maybe 2+2=a fryup without beans, and you go ballistic.  How stupid he is, you'll rage, for not seeing what is blindingly obvious to you. 

But you've ignored one thing: He. Does. Not. Accept. Your. Worldview.  The constants upon which you base your philosophy, life goals, and morality are not the same constants upon which he bases his.  You can blather on about your worldview being right and his being wrong (and you obviously like to do this) but it does not matter because until you are dead there is zero chance of proving one or the other.

Now, I would argue that we can and should have discussions about which worldview is correct - which set of fundamental precepts shall we use to make these important decisions?  But let's do this with a bit of respect and take the time to understand the other person.  "All other worldviews are backwards idiocy compared to my enlightened worldview and they should be eliminated" is the worst sort of fundamentalism there is, and is in fact the very thing you're criticising these fundamentalist Muslims for believing.

Instead, I suggest a bit of humility, willingness to learn and patience.  But that's just me, because I'm not a fundamentalist about my worldview.

Beautifully put, and pretty much what I said earlier.

Offline west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,380
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1308 on: August 13, 2014, 12:02:39 AM »

Your idea that we should all get along with people who see the world differently from us is 100% correct. Live and let live I say. The problem is that some people with a particular worldview that millions of others share, use that underlying core to justify horrible atrocities. We could just say let's get rid of those but the core message does allow for a re-emergence of the fundamentalists.


Your talking about the US right?

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1309 on: August 13, 2014, 02:30:20 AM »
No, Bob, I'm asking you how you will explain the empirical fact of evolution to your children. You want to bring them up to love truth, which is very laudable of course, but also use the term 'the God who created all things'. I wonder how you'll reconcile that?

Evolution by natural selection only changes what is already in existence though, right? At the very least, it certainly can't be said that evolution creates ex nihilo. So in that sense I would say there is no contradiction.

Quote
As I've said my love of nature is why I'm interested in evolution; the driving force behind why we live on an amazing planet with it's multitude of lifeforms. Part of accepting the weight of scientific knowledge that supports the fact of evolution is that we're descended from apes.

To be honest, on the surface it is a troubling notion, and it really should be. As human beings, we have a capacity for rationality and a dignity that exceeds all other species, so reducing humanity to the merely bestial (even if it is a particularly advanced or intelligent beast) is to strip humanity of its distinctive essence. And perhaps I'm even wrong so say our rationality "exceeds" other species, because to "exceed" is to imply a difference in quantity rather than kind. The rationality of human beings, our ability to truly think and to abstract and to reason, our ability to reflect upon our own consciousness and exhibit intentionality, are all features that cannot be accounted for by purely mechanical processes. No amount of mutations, no infinitely long duration of time, no adaptions could ever produce rationality from the merely material.

So if the contention is that human beings are descended from apes, then that in itself is not necessarily objectionable. But if the contention is that human beings are nothing but advanced apes, nothing but clumps of meaningless, undirected, undifferentiated matter, then one is offering a metaphysical (not scientific) argument, and a poor one at that.


Quote
Congratulations on you impending marriage, btw
Thank you. I'm very excited  ;D

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,962
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1310 on: August 13, 2014, 02:31:41 AM »
One of the things that really frustrates me about talking to the "new atheist" breed of online Dawkins-quoters is this.

This idea that by using the word "religion" you get to say "well, we're the only ones without one so we can obviously see what's wrong with all of the others and pass judgment on them.  I hate the word "religion" for this very reason.

You see, you have a worldview (a much more useful word, invented by a very clever German linguist).  A Muslim from Pakistan has a worldview.  The evangelical from Kansas has a worldview.  The reformed Jew from Poland has a worldview.  A worldview is a lens through which you interpret everything and it absolutely biases you to certain conclusions about the world and every single person has one.

Imagine a world where there are competing mathematical systems.  In your system, 2+2=4 and this is very obvious to you.  But then you meet an immigrant from a place where the symbol "2" means something else on a fundamental level.  You hear this man say that 2+2=6, or maybe 2+2=a fryup without beans, and you go ballistic.  How stupid he is, you'll rage, for not seeing what is blindingly obvious to you. 

But you've ignored one thing: He. Does. Not. Accept. Your. Worldview.  The constants upon which you base your philosophy, life goals, and morality are not the same constants upon which he bases his.  You can blather on about your worldview being right and his being wrong (and you obviously like to do this) but it does not matter because until you are dead there is zero chance of proving one or the other.

Now, I would argue that we can and should have discussions about which worldview is correct - which set of fundamental precepts shall we use to make these important decisions?  But let's do this with a bit of respect and take the time to understand the other person.  "All other worldviews are backwards idiocy compared to my enlightened worldview and they should be eliminated" is the worst sort of fundamentalism there is, and is in fact the very thing you're criticising these fundamentalist Muslims for believing.

Instead, I suggest a bit of humility, willingness to learn and patience.  But that's just me, because I'm not a fundamentalist about my worldview.

And rightly so. Of course you should criticise someone for believing in something for which there exists no evidence. To use your analogy to mathematics, if the 2+2=6 brigade have no evidence and continue to bang on about their rights to believe that 2+2=6 and continue to insist that this 'controversy' ought to be taught at schools and that this viewpoint deserves the same respect as the view that 2+2=4 which of course has mountains and mountains of evidence to back it up, then there is absolutely no harm in telling the 2+2=6 brigade to do one.
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,962
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1311 on: August 13, 2014, 02:41:32 AM »
Evolution by natural selection only changes what is already in existence though, right? At the very least, it certainly can't be said that evolution creates ex nihilo. So in that sense I would say there is no contradiction.

To be honest, on the surface it is a troubling notion, and it really should be. As human beings, we have a capacity for rationality and a dignity that exceeds all other species, so reducing humanity to the merely bestial (even if it is a particularly advanced or intelligent beast) is to strip humanity of its distinctive essence. And perhaps I'm even wrong so say our rationality "exceeds" other species, because to "exceed" is to imply a difference in quantity rather than kind. The rationality of human beings, our ability to truly think and to abstract and to reason, our ability to reflect upon our own consciousness and exhibit intentionality, are all features that cannot be accounted for by purely mechanical processes. No amount of mutations, no infinitely long duration of time, no adaptions could ever produce rationality from the merely material.

So if the contention is that human beings are descended from apes, then that in itself is not necessarily objectionable. But if the contention is that human beings are nothing but advanced apes, nothing but clumps of meaningless, undirected, undifferentiated matter, then one is offering a metaphysical (not scientific) argument, and a poor one at that.

Thank you. I'm very excited  ;D

Completely wrong on all accounts.

The first bit about the creation of life itself is simply a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how life started and therefore God started it because well science can't explain it at the moment.

The second paragraph is explained by the complexity of the human brain. Many other animals have various facets of what we have in our brains and in some cases particular features are tuned up to being better than human abilities. Of course as an all round tool our brains are more advanced than those of other animals and its from the brain that all our 'consciousness' arises. That doesn't make us any more special than any other animal. I'm not seeing the metaphysics at all in such an assertion.

Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1312 on: August 13, 2014, 03:40:08 AM »
Religion, which is only a part of a world view in most cases, is a pre-wrapped package with rituals and practices attached. Those rituals and and practices can be malleable or discarded, twisted out of all recognition or misinterpreted (hence schisms), but the underlying core can not if one wants to say they are part of a religion
.

A great example of how vacuous the word "religion" is. What does this even mean? As a Christian, how does this apply to me concretely?

Quote
Atheism on the other hand isn't a worldview at all. It's just a view on one particular subject. It's not a core belief for anyone to base anything on except in relation to that one subject.

Nonsense. If by atheism you mean the rejection of a god or gods, then your rejection is trivial and empirical in nature. But if by atheism you mean the rejection of the Unmoved Mover (Aristotle), or the Subsistent Act of Being (Aquinas) then your rejection is substantial and metaphysical in nature. And it most certainly constitutes a worldview, or a "metanarrative"

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1313 on: August 13, 2014, 03:55:48 AM »
Completely wrong on all accounts.

The first bit about the creation of life itself is simply a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how life started and therefore God started it because well science can't explain it at the moment.

Wrong. The argument is deductive and metaphysical, not empirical. "God of the gaps" does not apply here.

Quote
The second paragraph is explained by the complexity of the human brain. Many other animals have various facets of what we have in our brains and in some cases particular features are tuned up to being better than human abilities. Of course as an all round tool our brains are more advanced than those of other animals and its from the brain that all our 'consciousness' arises. That doesn't make us any more special than any other animal. I'm not seeing the metaphysics at all in such an assertion.

I didn't say anything about complexity.

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,962
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1314 on: August 13, 2014, 03:59:38 AM »
Wrong. The argument is deductive and metaphysical, not empirical. "God of the gaps" does not apply here.

Of course it is a god of the gaps argument. There is nothing deductive about what you said. What have you deduced exactly ? 
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline Bob Sacamano

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Alleged Manc and/or Gooner
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1315 on: August 13, 2014, 04:28:20 AM »
Of course it is a god of the gaps argument. There is nothing deductive about what you said. What have you deduced exactly ? 

I'll quote David B. Hart, who says it better than I can:
 
Quote
The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/believe-it-or-not

No God of the gaps reasoning involved.


Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,595
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1316 on: August 13, 2014, 07:22:12 AM »
One of the things that really frustrates me about talking to the "new atheist" breed of online Dawkins-quoters is this.

Err... What?  Let's ignore all the ad hominems and straw men. I am almost sixty and I have been an atheist pretty much since Sunday school. Difficult as it is for you to understand, many people can actually think for themselves and form their own rational worldview without the need for prophets. My world view has been formed by reading a wide range of books (that's what we read before the Internet) and other sources. It had changed over the years and changes by the day because I have that freedom as a rationalist and as an atheist. I am not a follower or quoter of Dawkins thanks very much. My personal philosophy comes from reading Thomas Paine, Pilger, Hermann Hesse, Shakespeare, Asimov, Phillip K Dick, Borges, Gibbons Decline and Fall, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land is a great book),Vonnegut, Daniel Dennett, great investigative journalism and amazing photojournalism. Film, theatre and music have all contributed. Of particular interest to me was the nature of spirituality and where it came from. For my college thesis on the nature of common sense I read widely on the balance between innate behaviour and learned behaviour. When I designed an exhibition about Reliquaries at the British Museum it was fascinating to talk to experts about the nature of worship and how pre-Christian practices were adopted by the early church and how saints and relics were used by the church to control. It also how they brought great comfort. For another show about the Mayans I read widely and spoke to experts about the nature of Pre-Colombian religion and tried to understand their mindset. At the moment I'm designing the British library's Magna Carta exhibition. So I'm knee deep in the development of human freedoms and human rights over the last 800 years. I was at the Houses of Parliament Archives looking at the Petition of Rights and the English Bill of Rights. I've been reading and listening to Gandhi, Mandela and other less well known figures, reading the US Bill of Rights and Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence...  And so on. My sources are these and thousands of others.

That's the nature of being an atheist and a rationalist. If you embrace it, then everyday is an opportunity to have your world view challenged.

Or maybe we all just quote Dawkins off the Internet. I suppose if your world view is that everything literally comes from one source and can only be interpreted by your particular God's appointed interpreters then the natural model is to think of atheism and rationalism as a religion and Dawkins as it's prophet.

Which all makes your following paragraphs interesting. You may want to equate religions as just another 'world view' but there is a fundamental difference between where I stand and how I think and how someone who believes that their religion is the word of God.

My world view can change based on new evidence. A religious world view is dictated by God.

It's true that to accommodate the real world as well as the inherent contradictions, many religions try to reinterpret that word of God but that tends to result in schisms and factionalisation.

Religions are only 'just another world view' if you take god out of the equation. A Hindu and a Jew have different Gods, different beliefs and different practices. I can respect them (and I do I'm most cases) for what I see them to be, which is a range of cultural practices developed over time that reflects that society's history and environment. But it is surely self-evident that the Hindu gods, Jahweh, God, Thor, Zeus etc cannot all exist. My respect for my fellow man and woman is based on their humanity and their human rights.

I don't believe I have to respect every world view as equal. That way lies madness. I don't respect any person who uses religion to justify violence. I certainly do not think that "All other worldviews are backwards idiocy compared to my enlightened worldview and they should be eliminated" and I'm not sure why you put that in quotation marks.

Oh and if your asking for people to show humility. Don't. Be. So. Fucking. Patronising?

Quote
This idea that by using the word "religion" you get to say "well, we're the only ones without one so we can obviously see what's wrong with all of the others and pass judgment on them.  I hate the word "religion" for this very reason.

You see, you have a worldview (a much more useful word, invented by a very clever German linguist).  A Muslim from Pakistan has a worldview.  The evangelical from Kansas has a worldview.  The reformed Jew from Poland has a worldview.  A worldview is a lens through which you interpret everything and it absolutely biases you to certain conclusions about the world and every single person has one.

Imagine a world where there are competing mathematical systems.  In your system, 2+2=4 and this is very obvious to you.  But then you meet an immigrant from a place where the symbol "2" means something else on a fundamental level.  You hear this man say that 2+2=6, or maybe 2+2=a fryup without beans, and you go ballistic.  How stupid he is, you'll rage, for not seeing what is blindingly obvious to you. 

But you've ignored one thing: He. Does. Not. Accept. Your. Worldview.  The constants upon which you base your philosophy, life goals, and morality are not the same constants upon which he bases his.  You can blather on about your worldview being right and his being wrong (and you obviously like to do this) but it does not matter because until you are dead there is zero chance of proving one or the other.

Now, I would argue that we can and should have discussions about which worldview is correct - which set of fundamental precepts shall we use to make these important decisions?  But let's do this with a bit of respect and take the time to understand the other person.  "All other worldviews are backwards idiocy compared to my enlightened worldview and they should be eliminated" is the worst sort of fundamentalism there is, and is in fact the very thing you're criticising these fundamentalist Muslims for believing.

Instead, I suggest a bit of humility, willingness to learn and patience.  But that's just me, because I'm not a fundamentalist about my worldview.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,595
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1317 on: August 13, 2014, 07:51:38 AM »
That is not true. Muslims can and they do condemn horrific acts in the name of God. Imams in many countries have been killed precisely for this. These terrorists have killed more muslims (whom they consider infidels too may I add) more than anyone else. If you have actually read their philosophy derived, they treat everyone who doesnt agree with them as a legitimate target.

Yorky dealt with this to some extent but I did choose my words carefully. And it comes back to the fundamental problem with religious texts.

The reason they cannot wholeheartedly condemn is because the religious fundamentalist terrorists justify their actions with quotations that are actually contained within those texts.

The sensible thing for God to do would be to issue a clarification: "Hey lads, you have got this completely wrong. This is what I actually meant you dumb murdering fucks..."

Unfortunately God for whatever reason has chosen not to do this (I suppose Jesus was an attempt but God is such a cryptic bugger he has to make it over-complicated - burning bushes and stone tablets on mountain tops? Really?), so it's left to moderates to either point to the good bits or explain away the difficult bits as misinterpretation.

What they cannot do is deny that those bits are the word of god. Because history shows that when that happens you get schisms and conflict. Typically followed by persecution and death. 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 07:53:10 AM by Random Alan #0069 »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,792
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1318 on: August 13, 2014, 08:25:52 AM »
Brilliant post Alan  I also began to question all religions in my teens , and have done ever since and I am in my sixties , my first problem was how can anyone say their religion is the only true one ! Once you get passed this one you examine the whole fabric of religious belief!

I am not trying to patronise but in my opinion some people like order and direction to their lives which a religion gives them, some do not and question the value of religions. I am with the latter group !
The National Pensioners Convention (NPC) is the principal organisation representing pensioners in the United Kingdom. It is made up of around 1,000 bodies representing 1.5 million members, organised into federal regional units.
The NPC was founded by former Transport and General Workers' Union trade union leader, Jack Jones in 1979

Offline Broad Spectrum

  • Antibiotic
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,965
Re: Islamism
« Reply #1319 on: August 13, 2014, 09:18:08 AM »
I have a problem with any society being based on any religion. Most religions were established by people with no real knowledge of the world - they are bronze-age and iron-age (pre-industrial and pre-technological) texts that have only a rudimentary appreciation of science. As such they contain rules for living in largely rural societies with small family groups. The largest cities had a few hundred thousand inhabitants and contact between them and outlying towns took days by horse, cart or by foot on land or by ship on rivers and by seas.

With no knowledge of medicine, food preservation or genetics they had to resort to crude taboos and culinary practices... and so on.


Indonesian Hindus throw live offerings into Mt Bromo volcano








The origin of the festival lies in the 15th century when a princess named Roro Anteng started the principality of Tengger with her husband Joko Seger, and the childless couple asked the mountain gods for help in bearing children. The legend says the gods granted them 24 children but on the provision that the 25th must be tossed into the volcano in sacrifice. After an initial refusal the 25th child, Kesuma, was finally sacrificed in this way, and the tradition of throwing sacrifices into the caldera to appease the mountain gods continues today.